Richard Holbrooke, the late diplomat, would never have let relations
between the United States and Pakistan decline to this level, his widow,
Kati Marton, said on Friday. "The day after [Osama] bin Laden was
killed, Richard would have been on a plane to Pakistan, and he would not
have come home until the relationship was mended," Marton, an author
and journalist, told National Journal. "We never went for a walk in Central Park without calls coming in from Pakistan."

"He knew not only the ISI [Pakistani intelligence] folks, but the
generals and all the politicians and dissidents. He crawled into tents
in refugee camps," Marton said. "He wouldn't have allowed [this] to
happen."

Marton was referring to the freeze in U.S.-Pakistan relations that
began after the Obama administration's raid on bin Laden's compound in
Abbottabad a year ago -- tensions that may now pose the single biggest
obstacle to ending America's longest war. Nominally a U.S. ally,
Pakistan has stepped up its support of violent extremists intent on
attacking U.S. and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and undermining
stability there. But according to critics in the United States, Europe,
and Pakistan, the issue is still being largely shunted aside by
Washington out of fear, inertia, and a lack of a strategic vision on the
part of the U.S. and NATO.

"It is a failure of diplomacy of the highest order, where we have had
the lives of our people at stake," Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S.
ambassador to Afghanistan and the United Nations, told NJ for
the cover story in this week's issue, "Paralyzed by Pakistan." In order
to keep the Pakistanis even marginally cooperative, Khalilzad said, "I
think frankly we have been too cautious and willing to pay too high a
price."

Before he was forced out of office last year, Pakistan's ambassador
to the U.S., Husain Haqqani--who worked closely with Holbrooke--urged U.S.
officials to adopt a "holistic" approach to the region that would help
wean Pakistan from its military support of Islamists. It never happened.
And today, rather than coming up with a new overarching strategic
policy for Pakistan and the region that is commensurate with the deep
commitments that President Obama and NATO have now made, Washington and
other capitals continue to watch, helplessly, as a middle-sized
developing country defies a superpower and the NATO alliance with
virtual impunity.

"The Americans are completely paralyzed by this situation," said one
European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. A senior NATO
official also laid the problem on the Americans. "It's quite difficult
at times to find a single U.S. policy on Pakistan, much less
coordination with others."

White House officials, responding to Marton's comments and other criticisms in this article, argued Friday that the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is mainly poor because of "a series of events that were impossible to foresee but had nothing to do with our policy," as one senior administration official put it. The incidents began with the diplomatic furor over a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis in early 2011and culminated in the accidental NATO strikes that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani troops last November. That had nothing to do with "poor diplomacy," the official said.

The administration's paralysis has been evident in an intense,
months-long debate over whether to issue an apology to Pakistan over the
errant NATO strikes that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers last
fall, even though several months have passed since the completion of an
official Pentagon investigation that partially blamed mistakes made by
U.S. forces for the incident, U.S. officials said. The State Department
resurrected the idea earlier this year after repudiating the U.S.
ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, early on when he pressed for an
immediate apology following the incident last November. But Obama,
facing charges of appeasement from Mitt Romney, has hesitated.

Marton said that by the end of the summer of 2010, Holbrooke, before
he died suddenly that December at the age of 69, had begun to grow
confident that he could deliver a strategic vision for the region that
would address the fundamental issues in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
"I think it was in August, when I caught him with a faraway look, the
kind he had when he was working on something in his head. I said,
'Richard what are you thinking about?' He said, 'I think I've got it. I
think I can see how all the pieces can fit together.' It looked like he
was working a Rubik's cube in his head.... The thing that keeps me awake
some nights is that I'm not at all sure he had that conversation with
the president."

It's not clear that would have made a difference, however. Widely
acclaimed as one of America's most masterful diplomats, having
orchestrated the 1995 Dayton peace accord, Holbrooke was intensely
frustrated by White House interference, according to observers inside
and outside the administration. After being named Obama's special
representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009, Holbrooke was said
to have been curtailed by then-National Security Adviser James Jones and
a coterie of close aides around Obama. This was especially true when
Holbrooke sought to tackle the larger regional issues, in particular the
tense relationship between India and Pakistan, which the Pakistani
military and ISI use to justify their support of Islamist radicals. The
White House denied his request to make India and specifically Kashmir
part of his portfolio, although that disputed province, situated between
Pakistan and India, has given birth to numerous Pakistan-supported
jihadist groups. Nor did Holbrooke get support from the White House when
he sought to confront Afghan President Hamid Karzai over corruption,
critics say.

After Holbrooke died suddenly, he was
replaced by career diplomat Marc Grossman, who is widely considered
ineffective and has only provoked back-biting from the State
Department's South and Central Asian bureau, where the assistant
secretary, Robert Blake, has been largely cut out. "It's all Holbrooke's
broken china," says one official. The two leading figures in U.S.
policy in the region, Ryan Crocker, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and
Gen. John Allen, are already making plans to leave (in Crocker's case,
back to retirement, while Allen is expected to be named NATO commander
in Europe). Ambassador Munter, described as increasingly agitated over
the failure of U.S. policy, has been reassigned.

While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is sometimes praised
for her approach to the region, having recently proposed a "New Silk
Road" to induce Pakistan and other countries to work with Afghanistan,
she too is seen as someone who has been largely cut out of policymaking
by the White House.

In the meantime, U.S. officials have begun to bluntly acknowledge, as
never before, that Pakistan's senior military and intelligence
apparatus are supporting and funding the same jihadists who are killing
U.S. and NATO soldiers--not just Americans, but also British, French,
Italians, and Canadians--and endangering the United States' 10-year,
vastly expensive response to 9/11, placing the outcome of America's
longest war in danger. Even the U.S. Embassy in Kabul -"which is
American soil," U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker angrily
noted in an interview -- was twice attacked by "Pakistan-based
insurgents."

Last September, outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen called the
terrorist Haqqani network in Pakistan's tribal regions, the suspected
culprit behind the Kabul embassy attack, a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's
ISI or intelligence service. Mullen, now retired, is said to be working
on a book that will defend Holbrooke's diplomatic efforts and criticize
the Obama administration.

In recent days, Pakistan's decision to imprison a doctor who helped
the United States confirm bin Laden's whereabouts has only highlighted
the diplomatic issue.

U.S. and NATO officials remain hesitant about offending Islamabad
because of a bedrock fear that, if Pakistan becomes destabilized, its
nuclear arsenal could fall into the wrong hands. That caution ruled at
the recent NATO summit in Chicago, where all the talk was simply about
getting the Pakistanis to permit NATO the use of its overland routes in
order to expedite the pullout.

Despite the rampant anti-Americanism in Pakistan, Khalilzad and other
critics suggest that one alternative is to issue a "demarche" of the
kind the Pakistanis have not been given since right after 9/11,
when then-President Pervez Musharraf was delivered a stark choice:
Support the war against the Taliban totally, or you're through. Now
Pakistan should be confronted with a clear and harsh update of that
choice: confront the international community and be turned into a
sanctioned pariah, like Iran, in which case the country will lose ground
economically and militarily to its arch-rival India. Or, embrace fully
anti-Taliban measures and be rewarded with more economic assistance,
such as Clinton's New Silk Road, which seeks to turn the region into a
commercial hub once again.

"We have to be willing to escalate the pressure, which in my view has
to include Pakistan's very difficult economic circumstances," says
Khalilzad. "Today I think the Pakistanis can cover only about 10 weeks
of imports. We also need to move diplomatically by engaging some key
countries they rely on, like China and Saudi Arabia."

Until he died, Marton says, Holbrooke was trying to get the
administration to see the larger picture. "He was pushing reconciliation
with the Taliban when no one wanted to hear about it," she said. "He
knew that ultimately they would have to come to him to negotiate." But
now negotiations are going nowhere.

About the Author

Most Popular

The revolutionary ideals of Black Panther’s profound and complex villain have been twisted into a desire for hegemony.

The following article contains major spoilers.

Black Panther is a love letter to people of African descent all over the world. Its actors, its costume design, its music, and countless other facets of the film are drawn from all over the continent and its diaspora, in a science-fiction celebration of the imaginary country of Wakanda, a high-tech utopia that is a fictive manifestation of African potential unfettered by slavery and colonialism.

But it is first and foremost an African American love letter, and as such it is consumed with The Void, the psychic and cultural wound caused by the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the loss of life, culture, language, and history that could never be restored. It is the attempt to penetrate The Void that brought us Alex Haley’s Roots, that draws thousands of African Americans across the ocean to visit West Africa every year, that left me crumpled on the rocks outside the Door of No Return at Gorée Island’s slave house as I stared out over a horizon that my ancestors might have traversed once and forever. Because all they have was lost to The Void, I can never know who they were, and neither can anyone else.

In Cyprus, Estonia, the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere, passports can now be bought and sold.

“If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means,” the British prime minister, Theresa May, declared in October 2016. Not long after, at his first postelection rally, Donald Trump asserted, “There is no global anthem. No global currency. No certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag.” And in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has increased his national-conservative party’s popularity with statements like “all the terrorists are basically migrants” and “the best migrant is the migrant who does not come.”

Citizenship and its varying legal definition has become one of the key battlegrounds of the 21st century, as nations attempt to stake out their power in a G-Zero, globalized world, one increasingly defined by transnational, borderless trade and liquid, virtual finance. In a climate of pervasive nationalism, jingoism, xenophobia, and ever-building resentment toward those who move, it’s tempting to think that doing so would become more difficult. But alongside the rise of populist, identitarian movements across the globe, identity itself is being virtualized, too. It no longer needs to be tied to place or nation to function in the global marketplace.

Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein flew to Seattle for a press conference at which he announced little, but may have said a great deal.

Back in the fall of 2001, exactly one month after the 9/11 attacks, a lawyer in Seattle named Tom Wales was murdered as he worked alone at his home computer at night. Someone walked into the yard of Wales’s house in the Queen Anne Hill neighborhood of Seattle, careful to avoid sensors that would have set off flood lights in the yard, and fired several times through a basement window, hitting Wales as he sat at his desk. Wales survived long enough to make a call to 911 and died soon afterwards. He was 49, divorced, with two children in their 20s.

The crime was huge and dismaying news in Seattle, where Wales was a prominent, respected, and widely liked figure. As a young lawyer in the early 1980s he had left a potentially lucrative path with a New York law firm to come to Seattle and work as an assistant U.S. attorney, or federal prosecutor. That role, which he was still performing at the time of his death, mainly involved prosecuting fraud cases. In his off-duty hours, Wales had become a prominent gun-control advocate. From the time of his death onward, the circumstances of the killing—deliberate, planned, nothing like a robbery or a random tragedy—and the prominence of his official crime-fighting record and unofficial advocacy role led to widespread assumption that his death was a retaliatory “hit.” The Justice Department considers him the first and only U.S. prosecutor to have been killed in the line of duty.

A week after 17 people were murdered in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, teenagers across South Florida, in areas near Washington, D.C., and in other parts of the United States walked out of their classrooms to stage protests against the horror of school shootings and to advocate for gun law reforms.

A week after 17 people were murdered in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, teenagers across South Florida, in areas near Washington, D.C., and in other parts of the United States walked out of their classrooms to stage protests against the horror of school shootings and to advocate for gun law reforms. Student survivors of the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School traveled to their state Capitol to attend a rally, meet with legislators, and urge them to do anything they can to make their lives safer. These teenagers are speaking clearly for themselves on social media, speaking loudly to the media, and they are speaking straight to those in power—challenging lawmakers to end the bloodshed with their “#NeverAgain” movement.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a “safe haven” law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family—nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Here are some readers with extra elements on this discussion—political, cultural, international. First, an American reader on the interaction of current concepts of masculinity and the nearly all-male population of mass gun murderers:

The path to its revival lies in self-sacrifice, and in placing collective interests ahead of the narrowly personal.

The death of liberalism constitutes the publishing world’s biggest mass funeral since the death of God half a century ago. Some authors, like conservative philosopher Patrick Deneen, of Why Liberalism Failed, have come to bury yesterday’s dogma. Others, like Edward Luce (The Retreat of Western Liberalism), Mark Lilla (The Once and Future Liberal), and Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die) come rather to praise. I’m in the latter group; the title-in-my-head of the book I’m now writing is What Was Liberalism.

But perhaps, like God, liberalism has been buried prematurely. Maybe the question that we should be asking is not what killed liberalism, but rather, what can we learn from liberalism’s long story of persistence—and how can we apply those insights in order to help liberalism write a new story for our own time.

A new study explores a strange paradox: In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions.

Though their numbers are growing, only 27 percent of all students taking the AP Computer Science exam in the United States are female. The gender gap only grows worse from there: Just 18 percent of American computer-science college degrees go to women. This is in the United States, where many college men proudly describe themselves as “male feminists” and girls are taught they can be anything they want to be.

Meanwhile, in Algeria, 41 percent of college graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math—or “STEM,” as it’s known—are female. There, employment discrimination against women is rife and women are often pressured to make amends with their abusive husbands.

According to a report I covered a few years ago, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates were the only three countries in which boys are significantly less likely to feel comfortable working on math problems than girls are. In all of the other nations surveyed, girls were more likely to say they feel “helpless while performing a math problem.”

The president’s son is selling luxury condos and making a foreign-policy speech.

Who does Donald Trump Jr. speak for?

Does the president’s son speak for the Trump Organization as he promotes luxury apartments in India? Does he speak for himself when he dines with investors in the projects? Does he speak for the Trump administration as he makes a foreign-policy speech in Mumbai on Friday?

“When these sons go around all over the world talking about, one, Trump business deals and, two, … apparently giving speeches on some United States government foreign policy, they are strongly suggesting a linkage between the two,” Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer who is a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, told me. “Somebody, somewhere is going to cross the line into suggesting a quid pro quo.”